Do atheists really long for God

First, one can't treat atheists and agnostics similarly, as they're two entirely different viewpoints. Atheists are actually more akin to theists
than to agnostics, in that they have a specific belief regarding the possible existence of "god(s)." Agnostics do not have any belief either way--
we neither believe that there are such things (theist), nor that there aren't (atheist).

That said, it seems quite obvious that atheists comment on religious threads (and some of them seem to do virtually nothing but that) because they are
seeking to justify or validate their beliefs. As AkashicWanderer already pointed out, they're attempting to imply support for their own belief
system by attempting to discredit their theistic counterparts.

I don't believe that they "long for God." I believe that they long for some sense of certainty and confidence in their adopted belief, and since
they have no empirical evidence to which to point in support of their belief, they're relegated to implying the truth of their belief by trying to
demonstrate the falsity of the opposite belief.

Originally posted by OneGodJesus
Ok, I can respect that as I have said above, but I would pose the same question to you as I did them.

Sure I'll do my best.

Let me ask you though, would you be offended if someone just live holy before you and didn't curse, drink, smoke, didn't cut thier hair, wore a
dress and never jeans or pants (including shorts), didn't mix bathe (swim) with people not family, went to church frequently?

Not at all, I actually like people who don't curse, drink or smoke. I really don't judge people on how they keep their hair or how they dress
either. If I met and feel friendly with someone who refuses to go into a swimming pool I would probably ask them why. My in laws and my grand parents
go to church every Sunday. It doesn't offend me at all.

If someone asked in your presence about the matter would you chime in because you really wanted the person asking to not follow that path for thier
lives?

No. I live in a free country and if someone I know follows a path that is not harmful to others and brings joy to their life I am happy for them.

I have seen and heard about this MANY times. We live holy before people and some ask and want to know about what we believe, when we start telling
them anyone in ear shot gets right in the middle of it and tells them we are some kind of cult, or how we aren't right, or how the bible isn't
right, or how Jesus doesn't exist and for us to prove it. I admit that most of the time it is denominational "Christians" doing it but not always.
It is rarely done in an inquizitive (sp?) manner, it is mostly confrontational.

Those people should probably get a life instead of interrupting other people's conversations

I am glad to hear this. I am finding that although I thought I was an atheist when I was younger, I probably wasn't really. I am just trying now to
understand them and this forum seems to be a good way to do that. I made the thread to bring out my thoughts and gather other thoughts too. I may help
me understand the why's of agnosticism and atheism. Thanks for helping me do that.

Originally posted by Bob LaoTse
First, one can't treat atheists and agnostics similarly, as they're two entirely different viewpoints. Atheists are actually more akin to theists
than to agnostics, in that they have a specific belief regarding the possible existence of "god(s)." Agnostics do not have any belief either way--
we neither believe that there are such things (theist), nor that there aren't (atheist).

That said, it seems quite obvious that atheists comment on religious threads (and some of them seem to do virtually nothing but that) because they are
seeking to justify or validate their beliefs. As AkashicWanderer already pointed out, they're attempting to imply support for their own belief
system by attempting to discredit their theistic counterparts.

I don't believe that they "long for God." I believe that they long for some sense of certainty and confidence in their adopted belief, and since
they have no empirical evidence to which to point in support of their belief, they're relegated to implying the truth of their belief by trying to
demonstrate the falsity of the opposite belief.

Well said. SO if a agnostic were to find say a glimmer of the theistic would that change the pattern of his thinking to include a possibility of a
"gGod"?

Originally posted by OneGodJesus
...SO if a agnostic were to find say a glimmer of the theistic would that change the pattern of his thinking to include a possibility of a "gGod"?

The pertinent word here is "possibility." The thing that most specifically defines the agnostic viewpoint is the recognition of possibilities, and
the recognition that they're, at least to the extent of human knowledge, only possibilities.

I need no "glimmer of the theistic" to recognize the possibility of the existence of some manner of being that might legitimately be termed a
"god." That possibility is implied by the fact that the universe is vast beyond our comprehension, and that there are an equally vast number of
"possibilities" in a universe so vast.

However, there is no credible objective evidence that would support the contention that some being that we might legitimately term a "god" either
exists or does not exist anywhere in our universe, so it remains only a possibility. The recognition of that possibility combined with the
recognition that neither viewpoint is demonstrably true and the choice to therefore believe neither viewpoint but to leave the question unanswered is
the very essence of agnosticism.

Originally posted by OneGodJesus
It seems to me that if you A: claim to be agnostic or B: athiestic , you would have no interest in the things of God, unless you have either a bone to
pick and wanted a forum to do it in

I don't believe that's a fair or even reasonable assessment. Failure to believe does not imply dissinterest in any way.

Does (almost) everyone long for god? If so, I don't know how we can separate how much of that is instinct and how much is circumstance. There is
nontrivial evidence that it's instinctive.

There is no hypocricy in making an intellectual judgement that opposes instinct. However, if we take history as our guide, the instinct is not toward
"god", but rather toward mysticism. Monotheism is a relative newcomer.

If I'm one of the anonymous "innocents" in your list, I don't think I'm representative of atheists in general, since I'm a recovering Christian
of nearly 40 years.

Some of what you are seeing is a backlash to the recent miltant Christian mindset, where religion has enetered politics and determines the fate of all
of us.

Personally, I am on a rather successful mission to deconvert as many as possible. The days of detente are over due to the politicization of religion.
It's my assessment that the current quandry we find ourselves in with the middle east is rooted in Christian apocolyptic beliefs. My life, and that
of my children are threatened by the drivel sold by Hal Lindsey and those who have come in his footsteps.

Not to mention, I do have a bone to pick. 30 odd wasted years sort of pisses me off.

Now that you know all of us atheists secretly long for god, you can rest comfortably in your own faith. After all, it was your own desire to justify
your faith that led you to start this thread. "If all the atheists really long for god, then I must be on the right track. That's worth reading
through 10,000 posts to prove."

Originally posted by spamandham
Now that you know all of us atheists secretly long for god, you can rest comfortably in your own faith. After all, it was your own desire to justify
your faith that led you to start this thread. "If all the atheists really long for god, then I must be on the right track. That's worth reading
through 10,000 posts to prove."

Rut Roh Raggy...lol. No desire to justify my faith, it stands on its own merit and is growing day to day, but thanks for asking (sort of). We had an
amish man and woman today come in and tell us about how they converted and it is again uplifting to know that this isn't just for the "typical", I
also have a friend who is a peurtorican and he thought it was only for the hispanics (Azusa street in LA is where all this started and all that) I
told him that I was taught and converted in a black PAW and he was again amazed that God gave it to us and them. But as the Word says "it is for as
many as the Lord shall call", notice that it is of necessity that He call you and not you seeking Him, it is exclusionary if you have a big head He
won't call you and you won't by the natural mind (carnal mind) seek Him. Interesting stuff.

Well as an Atheist myself I can tell you that I have no desire for god, nor do I long for one. I am perfectly happy and secure in my view that there
is not such thing. From time to time I may engage in conversation concerning such a supernatural entity, not because I secretly long for one, but
because it really irks me when people try to use god as a means by which they can prove their ideas.

Firstly, I disagree with the person who said that atheists argue against religious posts on this forum to understand the religious mind better and
feel intellectually superior to them. Fresh Stinking Bull! Thats just an insecure confused atheist who needs to be reassured that his path is correct
through ego-stroking. It may be true for you, and if it is, congratulations you just managed to offend a potentially logical mind for no real reason.
You spoil our secret plan of converting this planet into a secular haven!

Seconly, Atheism is not a form of belief system nor religion. Please, dont try too hard to fit your lack of understanding into narrowminded little
cubbyholes of religions. We dont like to be categorized just like you dont like to be categorized as "that christian."

But as the Word says "it is for as many as the Lord shall call", notice that it is of necessity that He call you and not you seeking Him, it
is exclusionary if you have a big head He won't call you and you won't by the natural mind (carnal mind) seek Him. Interesting stuff.

Oh wow isnt that wonderful!
Do me a favor. Define big head?
Is it someone who follows logic and refuses to accept some baloney someone made up?Is it someone who uses the tools of science and mathematics to
judge most things by? Is it someone who doesnt think lightening is God taking our picture? Is it someone who understands the mechanisms of nature by
constantly questioning?

P.S. OneGodJesus...you must really have a lot of time to kill to be able to read through 230482304823 posts and know exactly what agenda each one
carries!

Originally posted by I_s_i_s
Is it someone who follows logic and refuses to accept some baloney someone made up?Is it someone who uses the tools of science and mathematics to
judge most things by? Is it someone who doesnt think lightening is God taking our picture? Is it someone who understands the mechanisms of nature by
constantly questioning?

You have voted I_s_i_s for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

Originally posted by I_s_i_s
1) Seconly, Atheism is not a form of belief system nor religion. Please, dont try too hard to fit your lack of understanding into narrowminded little
cubbyholes of religions. We dont like to be categorized just like you dont like to be categorized as "that christian."

But as the Word says "it is for as many as the Lord shall call", notice that it is of necessity that He call you and not you seeking Him, it
is exclusionary if you have a big head He won't call you and you won't by the natural mind (carnal mind) seek Him. Interesting stuff.

2) Oh wow isnt that wonderful!
3) Do me a favor. Define big head?
4) OneGodJesus...you must really have a lot of time to kill to be able to read through 230482304823 posts and know exactly what agenda each one
carries!

1) So if it is not a belief system or a philosophy why is it categorized as such here: www.atheists.org...

2) Abosolutely, to know that after I pass from a small 112 years on this planet I will be someplace cool forever, YUP wonderful indeed.
3) A person who relies solely on what can be measured. Even the greatest minds understand that life is not made up of things you can only measure.
What is the weight or measure of a good thought? What is the temperature of love? Can you define these with an Imperical standard, yet we say and know
they exist. So yes, I'd say anyone who relies on logic solely as a frame of measuement for life.

4) Not so much really, when something is important. And it was only 11578 posts I covered not the number you mentioned. Are you sure you're a logical
thinker, that number is nowhere near mine and I just used a regular calculator...

Originally posted by I_s_i_s
Is it someone who follows logic and refuses to accept some baloney someone made up?Is it someone who uses the tools of science and mathematics to
judge most things by? Is it someone who doesnt think lightening is God taking our picture? Is it someone who understands the mechanisms of nature by
constantly questioning?

You have voted I_s_i_s for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

Thank you.

And where is mine...lol. No reply needed it was a rhetorical laughing question...as you guys are so good about patting each others backs

Y'know the more I look into this the more I am convinced by evidence alone that the philosophy isn't just something to think about but is something
that is a movement to convert people to it as ISIS has stated and this article represents: www.atheists.org...

It is stating in summation that it is acting very much like a religion would in its evangelism, don't you think? In fact the more that they deny the
existence of a divine hand the more they look like a movement guided by a divine hand (from a Christian viewpoint it could be argued by an evil hand).
Isn't it strange that the live and let live motto falls flat when given evidence of the movements plans and guidance from the groups leaders? If
they don't speak for most or all Atheists then who does or does anyone? If no one does then how can you hold the same ideas without a guidance
mechanism? Surely it can't be something learned in school k-12. Then maybe in college? Maybe it is just the lack of religious experience with a
positive outcome. Maybe it is just that in the logic of man it can't be found to fill that void, no matter how much you drink, drug, sex, adrenaline
(sp?) junkie, video game youself out. Maybe if you tried and experimented (like the scientists you all claim to be) and used a trial and error method
(been known to work on occassion) with an open mind each of the religions in turn and then decided from first hand experience instead of second hand
you'd have more respect from the religious community instead of the judgement you never tried so how can you judge it unworthy?

Now where is my vote for way above...lol. Really, just kidding, I don't care about something so silly as some kudos from some silly site.

Originally posted by OneGodJesus
So if it is not a belief system or a philosophy why is it categorized as such here:

Apparently you didn’t read it all the way through. Atheism is the rational investigation of questions about existence and knowledge, NOT some
religious cult following some nonsensical dogma. Just as there are many varieties of Christians, there are many varieties of atheists.

Your definition of a person with a “big head”:

A person who relies solely on what can be measured. Even the greatest minds understand that life is not made up of things you can only
measure.

Sure. Most scientific minds have brought forth insights into things that are completely counterintuitive and were considered non-measurable. We have
come a long way from the dark ages. It is insanity to throw out facts to embrace something that HAS been proven to not exist.

What is the weight or measure of a good thought? What is the temperature of love?

Am I to find those completely irrelevant nonsensical questions funny? Or is this your way of diverting the point to asinine babble?

…something that is a movement to convert people to it as ISIS has stated…
…And it was only 11578 posts I covered not the number you mentioned…

Oh I apologize. I assumed you’d have a sense of humor. No wonder you guys feel threatened all the time. Lighten up!

I can't say I'm a pure atheist, not anymore atleast, though some people consider me that because I don't believe in a god or any religiousy magicy
things.

I have my own personal beliefs that are based in science.
And if anyone wants to know what they are, don't ask me in this thread, click the link in my sig, I say this only because I dislike when a thread
gets "hi-jacked".

As for the whole Atheist's secrelty longing for god or whatnot, well, that's utter rubbish.
When I considered myself a full Atheist, I did'nt long for the belief in a god, nor do I know, quite the contrary, I longed to prove that a god did
not exist, though now I've since given up on that, simply because I have better things to do with my time.

Let me ask you though, would you be offended if someone just live holy before you and didn't curse, drink, smoke, didn't cut thier hair, wore a
dress and never jeans or pants (including shorts), didn't mix bathe (swim) with people not family, went to church frequently?

No, why would I? It's a fre country, if a person want's to believe something than let them, I could honestly careless as long as it does'nt hurt
and/or interfere with me and the .0000000000001% (not accurate) of the population I even care about.

Athiesm in itself is a form of religion

No it is'nt, it's like the famous quote, who'm I have no idea who said, reads,
"If Atheism is a religion, than Bald is a hair color."

Originally posted by OneGodJesus
Y'know the more I look into this the more I am convinced by evidence alone that the philosophy isn't just something to think about but is something
that is a movement to convert people to it as ISIS has stated and this article represents

There's no question that there exist "evangelical" atheists, and probably even groups that exist for that purpose. Does that imply that all
atheists belong to such groups? Of course not. Does it make atheism a religion? Only if you redefine religion. Politics, sports, music, a hate for
chinese food etc. each have evangelists as well.

The desire to spread your beliefs is either instinctive or such a part of western culture that we can't escape it anyway. Why do you find this to be
odd regarding atheism, when it is so common across most aspects of human life that have nothing to do with religion?

I'm as much an evangelist against Chinese food as I am against god. I badmouth chinese food every chance I get and try to convince others to hate it
as much as I do. There's not anyone who knows me worth a darn that isn't sick to death of hearing me rant my disdain for chinese food. Why do I do
that? I have no idea. It comes naturally. The wierd thing is, I don't hate chinese food nearly as much as my ranting would suggest. I even eat it
on rare occasions. "spam hates chinese food" is just sort of a trademark for me and I find myself pushing it without any conscious decision to do
so. Does that make achinesefoodism a religion as well guided by the hand of god, who clearly views chinese food as ritually unclean or something? Or
parhaps since I'm an atheist, chinese food must be god's chosen food, and I'm being guided by god's nemesis who hates chinese food just to spite
god.

Originally posted by OneGodJesus
Isn't it strange that the live and let live motto falls flat when given evidence of the movements plans and guidance from the groups leaders?

It's only strange if you view atheists as some centrally organized group. If you can ever absorb the idea that 'atheism' simply refers to a
disbelief in gods among people who are otherwise as different as any randomly selected group, it is not difficult to then understand how it is
possible that some might have a live and let live attitude, while others prefer "take no prisoners".

There is no central group guiding atheists as a whole, any more than there is a central group guiding blondes as a whole. Repeat that until it
sinks in.

Originally posted by OneGodJesus
If they don't speak for most or all Atheists then who does or does anyone? If no one does then how can you hold the same ideas without a guidance
mechanism?

We don't all share the same ideas. We have arrived at a disbelief in gods by numerous different paths.

I don't see you arguing that aleprechaunists must be guided by some central mechanism, because the mechanism is patently obvious. Some have thought
long and hard about leprechauns and concluded they don't exist based on philisophical arguments. Some arrive at a disbelief in leprechauns just
because they don't like the implications of leprechauns being real. Some disbelieve in leprechauns because they used to believe in leprechauns and
once saw the end of a rainbow with no pot of gold. Some get there because they've studied the history of leprechauns and conclude it's obvious
mythology. But most, just say "oh come on now, that's rediculous!"

Originally posted by OneGodJesus
Maybe if you tried and experimented (like the scientists you all claim to be) and used a trial and error method (been known to work on occassion) with
an open mind each of the religions in turn and then decided from first hand experience instead of second hand you'd have more respect from the
religious community instead of the judgement you never tried so how can you judge it unworthy?

I think you will find that the vast majority of "evangelical" atheists were once religious, or are members of groups pursecuted by religious
thinking. The live and let live types predominantly come from a nonreligious upbringing and do not feel persecuted by the religious, or they're
Buddhists.

Originally posted by I_s_i_s
1) Apparently you didn’t read it all the way through. Atheism is the rational investigation of questions about existence and knowledge, NOT some
religious cult following some nonsensical dogma. Just as there are many varieties of Christians, there are many varieties of atheists.

2) Most scientific minds have brought forth insights into things that are completely counterintuitive and were considered non-measurable. We have come
a long way from the dark ages. It is insanity to throw out facts to embrace something that HAS been proven to not exist.

3) Am I to find those completely irrelevant nonsensical questions funny? Or is this your way of diverting the point to asinine babble?

4) Oh I apologize. I assumed you’d have a sense of humor. No wonder you guys feel threatened all the time. Lighten up!

1) I did and in the very first paragraph it states exactly what I said, did you skim over that part?

2) So, Samuel Morse, Johannes Kepler, Louis Pasteur and the Wright brothers were ignorant men? History also tells us that the basis of physics was
established by men of Christian faith: Newton, Gauss, Faraday, Maxwell, Lord Kelvin, to name a few. The outstanding early botanist, John Ray (d.
1705), declared "The treasures of nature are inexhaustible...If man ought to reflect upon his Creator the glory of all his works, then ought he to
take notice of them all and not to think anything unworthy of his cognisance". If you take the stand that "something cannot be proven to exist" you
have closed your mind and are unreachable by truth when it shows itself later to be in fact existant. This is the big headedness I was speaking of and
you have exemplified by your statement. These men believed and look what they did inspite of your way of thinking: Joseph Lister (Antiseptic Surgery),
Robert Boyle (Chemistry), Georges Cuvier (Comparative Anatomy), Lord Rayleigh (Dimensional Analysis and Model Analysis), John Ambrose Fleming
(Electronics), Henri Fabre (Entomology of Living Insects), George Stokes (Fluid Mechanics), Sir William Hershel (Galactic Astronomy), Robert Boyle
(Gas Dynamics), Gregor Mendel (Genetics), Louis Agassiz (Glacial Geology), James Simpson (Gynaecology), Matthew Maury (Hydrography), Blaise Pascal
(Hydrostatics), Louis Agassiz (Ichthyology), William Ramsey (Isotopic Chemistry), John Ray (Natural History), Bernard Riemann (Non-Euclidean
Geometry), Matthew Maury (Oceanography), David Brewster (Optical Mineralogy). So I can only presume that these minds from the "dark ages" right?
Your gun is running out of bullets...

3) I guess I'm just a funny person...but it begs my response of "you can't answer these simple questions with logical thinking can you".

4) Not threatened, that would imply a credible threat, which I do not see yet. I do have humor, I am humoring you in your baseless logic, see hahaha.

1) No, why would I? It's a free country, if a person want's to believe something than let them, I could honestly careless as long as it does'nt
hurt and/or interfere with me and the .0000000000001% (not accurate) of the population I even care about.

2) Athiesm in itself is a form of religion No it is'nt, it's like the famous quote, who'm I have no idea who said, reads, "If Atheism is a
religion, than Bald is a hair color."

1)
2) Y'know most people who are fighter for the cause use Don Hirschberg, Clark Adams and Temy R. Beal quotes to back them up. I would caution you
though because Temy R. Beal also says "I assert that BOTH church and state should be abolished utterly" and Adams "If Atheism is a religion, then
health is a disease or bald is a hair color or peace is a type of war" although whitty is infantile in its application, like saying "can God create
a rock even He can't lift...blah blah blah" makes no sense in context, it is just someone who is clever in speaking. I would be very careful about
who you look to for leadership in your stance on things. As the blind leading the blind saying can apply in all directions. Just watch out for the
ditch of you put your faith in men, they have this nasty tendency to fail you when you least expect it. My .02

Span: The whole chinese food thing....funny stuff. I honestly laughed out loud on this one. Again about the stealth blonde joke, good stuff. See we
can get along and have a fun discussion without getting offended. I may make some statements about atheists that offend but that is prolly from lack
of understanding. It is not for lack of trying, I again state that I was one (albeit limited) in my youth. I am seeing that there can be
fundamentalists in every organization. I just happen to be one in mine (Christianity). I guess what I don't get is if atheists don't care about what
others think or preach (as long as they do not infringe on your liberty) is why even attack it. Is it just human nature? You don't see Buddhists,
Hindus or Sikhs (or even most scientist minus the ones attacking ID) doing it. I guess they figure that it just isn't worth it. If the Christians are
right it will show in thier lifestyles (you'll know them by their fruits) and if the others are right it will be bourne out the same way. I
personally think Jesus was prochoice. Think about it, that is what free will is all about. The only caveat is that an informed choice is what He
wanted mankind to make in all instances. It even says it the Word toweigh the cost of sevice to Him. If you put your hand to the plow don't look back
because you won't stay on a straight line otherwise. My o0ther .02

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.